Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Rappel du premier message :

U.S. clamps down on banking transactions; terror group finds new funding

By Robert Windrem and Garrett Haake
NBC News
updated 7:56 a.m. ET Nov. 14, 2008
Seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. intelligence officials believe they've won many small victories against al-Qaida's ability to finance its operations, but they remain unable to put a concrete dollar figure on their impact.

That's because they have no reliable estimate of al-Qaida's overall budget, according to current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials, which means the only measures of the organization's economic health are sporadic, anecdotal and fragmentary.

"When you see a cell complaining that it hasn't received its monthly or biannual stipend and it's unable to pay the salaries of the people in the cell, unable to make the support payments to the families of terrorists living or dead, that's a tremendous indicator we have pressured the financial channel," said Adam Szubin, the director of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and the man in charge of tracking terrorist finance.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27644191

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words - within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores - that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders.

That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations - to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean.

And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

.../...

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not - and never will be - at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security.

Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued Al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths - more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism - it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future - and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities.

.../...

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Israel, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.

And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.

.../...

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld - whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity - men and women - to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity. I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations - including my own - this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities - those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek - a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many - Muslim and non-Muslim - who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort - that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur.

There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country - you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort - a sustained effort - to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples - a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.

=======

Je ne peux empecher un sourire (un peu, si peu.... moqueur) en imaginant le degout sur le visage de tant d'athees de la gauche americaine. Allez.... c'etait un discours politique (c'est peut-etre comme pour les autres gadgets, avec un peu de chance, il n'en pense pas un mot de ces derniere remarques. )

Alice a écrit:

Obama: equality should be a woman's choice

Published:

06.04.09, 13:58 / Israel News

President Barack Obama says women should have the right to choose whether they want to be equal with men. He discussed women's rights in a speech about America's relationship with the Muslim world.

The US president says doesn't believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal. And he says he respects women who choose traditional roles. But he says women should have that choice. So, Obama is promising that the United States will partner with Muslim countries to support expanded literacy for girls and will help young women pursue jobs through a micro-financing program. (AP)
----------------

Là, il a manqué une grosse occasion de se taire... Attendons la réaction des groupes de défense des droits de la femme...
S'il assume pleinement cette position, je l'enjoins à remplacer le mot "femme" par le mot "noir" (afro-américain ou africain).
Je trouve que le parlement bruxellois devrait faire voter une motion condamnant ses propos, comme il le fit pour certains propos récents du Pape. La prise de position publique d'Obama s'apparente à un soutien à toutes les injustices, violences et crimes subies par les femmes de par le monde sous prétexte de leur "infériorité" (qu'elles acceptent ce statut ou non) ? Non ?

SI.

Je ne sais pas pour la motion bruxelloise, mais j'en tomberais de ma chaise si les groupes de defense des droits de la femme, ne serait-ce que, relevaient ces propos.

Heureusement que la majorite des caricaturistes sont de son bord, parce que la...

Muslim Brotherhood Members to Attend Obama's Cairo Speech

The expected attendance of the Brotherhood members is already stirring some criticism from conservatives in the U.S. who say they do not represent the kind of moderate Muslims Obama should be appealing to.

FOXNews.com
Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Egyptian lawmakers from the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood are expected to attend President Obama's highly anticipated speech to the Muslim world Thursday in Cairo.

Khaled Hamza, editor of the Muslim Brotherhood Web site, confirmed to FOXNews.com that 10 members of the Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc received official invitations to attend the speech.

The list includes Mohammed Saad el-Katatni, head of the parliamentary bloc.

The expected attendance of the Brotherhood members already is stirring some criticism from conservatives in the U.S. who say they do not represent the kind of moderate Muslims Obama should be appealing to.

"What kind of signal are we sending?" said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, warning that such an invitation will be seen more as a sign of weakness than strength. "I think the president takes some big risks by unilaterally putting out these olive branches."

The Muslim Brotherhood, though, has a complicated history.

Though the hard-line group, which calls for an Islamic state and has close ties to the militant Hamas, is officially banned in Egypt, its members have considerable sway in the country and its lawmakers, who run as independents, hold 88 seats in Egypt's 454-seat parliament.

The Brotherhood renounced the use of violence in the 1970s and now says it seeks democratic reform in Egypt. It is the most powerful opposition movement in the country, and many analysts argue Washington should engage the Brotherhood directly to show it is open to dealing with nonviolent Islamist movements.

The group is not on the State Department's official list of foreign terrorist groups.

Despite some reports suggesting the Obama administration arranged the invitations, officials said invitations were only sent out by Cairo University and Al-Azhar University.

...

Tarik etait-il invite? Ah! suis-je donc bete, il n'en fait pas partie.

Ce qui mene a la question suivante: si cette organisation politique et... sociale n'a rien a voir avec une organisation terroriste, pourquoi Mr. Ramadan nie-t-il tout lien avec?

Je sais, je cherche toujours la petite bete.

50 Muslim Brotherhood Members Arrested in Egypt Following Gaza Protests

FOXNews.com| World

… Muslim Brotherhood Members Arrested in Egypt Following ..... arrested 50 members of the opposition Muslim Brotherhood group for organizing Gaza protests ..... has ideological ties to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood , the country's strongest opposition …

Story|01/05/2009


Hoyer Meets Official From Egypt's Banned Muslim Brotherhood
AP| POLITICS

… Official From Egypt's Banned Muslim Brotherhood Saturday, April 07, 2007 ..... leading member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood , an outlawed opposition group ..... Leader Steny Hoyer met with the Muslim Brotherhood 's parliament leader, Mohammed …

Story|04/07/2007

Egyptian Police Arrest Muslim Brotherhood Members After Protest
AP| WORLD

… Police Arrest Muslim Brotherhood Members After Protest Thursday, December 14, 2006 CAIRO, Egypt Police arrested the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood 's chief strategist along with at least 140 others …

Story|12/14/2006



Banned... outlawed... mais bon...

Date.............................. Pres. Approval Index Strongly Approve Strongly Disapp. Total Approve Total Disapprove

06/04/2009	+2	33%	31%	55%	45%
06/03/2009	+3	34%	31%	55%	44%
06/02/2009	+5	33%	28%	58%	41%
06/01/2009	+7	35%	28%	58%	41%
05/31/2009	+10	36%	26%	58%	41%
05/30/2009	+9	37%	28%	58%	41%
05/29/2009	+10	37%	27%	59%	40%
05/28/2009	+6	35%	29%	56%	43%
05/27/2009	+5	34%	29%	56%	43%
05/26/2009	+1	31%	30%	55%	44%

=============

01/21/2009

+28

44%

16%

65%

30%

J'avoue ne pas savoir ce qui s'est passe les 26-27et28 pour que sa cote ait ainsi remonte mais bon, elle est redescendue

les innondations dues aux ouragans.

Planning the 'Ike Dike' Defense

Houston-Area Leaders Envision a 60-Mile Barrier Against Hurricane Flooding
By BEN CASSELMaN

GALVESTON, Texas -- As the Gulf Coast braces for hurricane season, Houston-area leaders are pushing a plan to build a wall stretching some 60 miles along the coast, hoping to end the annual storm threat once and for all.

Dubbed the "Ike Dike" after the hurricane that ravaged the Houston area in September, the 17-foot-high wall would straddle the narrow entrance to Galveston Bay with 1,000-foot-long floodgates, allowing access to the city's port in good weather, but swinging shut when a storm approached to block floodwaters. Most damage from hurricanes is usually caused by floodwaters.European Pressphoto Agency

The Maeslant Barrier near Rotterdam, Netherlands, is among the structures that inspired the Houston-area coastal-wall concept, said Bill Merrell, the Texas A&M professor who first proposed the project.

The total cost, according to project backers, would be $2 billion to $4 billion, although those numbers would almost certainly rise, experts say.

The idea is still in the conceptual stage and has plenty of detractors worried about cost, environmental impacts and whether it would really work. But the Ike Dike has gained significant traction in recent months.

A state commission set up by Texas Gov. Rick Perry to study disaster preparedness after Hurricane Ike supports moving ahead, and a coalition of elected officials is promoting it. The Houston business community, including powerful interests such as the chemical and shipping industries, has also signed on.

"This actually has more political legs than I ever dreamed it would have," said Bill King, a member of Gov. Perry's hurricane commission and the former mayor of the Galveston Bay city of Kemah.

Dike supporters argue that the project has implications far beyond Texas. The area is home to three of the country's 10 largest oil refineries, 40% of its chemical manufacturing capacity and the country's second largest seaport, handling some 600,000 tons of cargo a day.

"It's a national-security issue," said Bob Mitchell, president of the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, a local business group.

Bonjour les impots!

Je parlais sur "bouffee d'air" de l'annonce faire par Nancy P. (the W.W.W. ) que les remboursements de frais de nos elus seraient rendus publics.

Voila l'article en question:

House Lifts Lid On Its Expenses
June 4, 2009

By ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON, LOUISE RADNOFSKY and T.W. FARNAM

WASHINGTON -- The House will begin posting representatives' expense reports online, giving the public easy access to records of the millions of dollars lawmakers spend on staff and items such as catering, cars, computers and TVs.
Separately, Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) said Wednesday he would introduce a bill requiring the expense records be posted online in the Senate, as well. Such disclosures are "something that we will take a look at," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.).

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) ordered the postings Wednesday. The move followed recent stories in The Wall Street Journal examining lawmakers' office expenditures that are kept in voluminous paper records on Capitol Hill.

A spokesman for the speaker said her action wasn't prompted by the articles, which found mostly routine spending on staff salaries, travel and office rent, as well as supplies, printing and mailing. The 2008 reports also showed taxpayer money spent on luxury car leases, big-screen TVs, pricey laptops known as "Toughbooks" and fresh-cut flower arrangements.

House and Senate lawmakers receive annual allowances of $1.3 million to $4.5 million to run their offices. All the expenditures reviewed by the Journal were legal, and the disclosures complied with congressional rules.

The policy of offering only paper records was in stark contrast to the Obama administration's call for more transparency, such as his promise to post online spending details of the government's $787 billion stimulus plan. The House and Senate recently passed rules requiring online posting of documents on travel and lobbying.

In a letter Wednesday to House Chief Administrative Officer Dan Beard, Mrs. Pelosi asked the office expense reports be put online at the "earliest date." A spokesman for Mr. Beard said the expense reports would be posted by Aug. 31.

Electronic versions of the ink-and-paper reports will initially be posted in PDF format. The House "is examining ways" to enhance the ability to search the documents when it rolls out a new internal financial-processing system during the 112th Congress, said a statement from Mr. Beard's office. Reports from previous years won't be posted online.

"The House is making every effort to operate in a transparent manner and online publication of these reports will expand accountability to taxpayers and the press," Mrs. Pelosi said in her letter.
Mrs. Pelosi declined Wednesday to produce receipts for her own office expenditures.

"The speaker fully complies with required policies and procedures with respect to the statement of disbursements," said spokesman Drew Hammill.

New reports covering first-quarter spending this year showed that as congressional leaders came under pressure to rein in government expenditures, some curbed their own outlays.

Mrs. Pelosi, for instance, kept her leadership office stocked with fresh flowers, but she sacked her high-end Georgetown florist in December, switching to a cheaper shop.

Minority Leader John Boehner, a frequent critic of Democratic spending, reported a 16.8% increase in spending for his own leadership office, compared with the first three months of 2008, the reports said. One new expense was the hiring of two new communications aides.

A spokesman said Mr. Boehner beefed up his staff after Democrats took over the White House and fattened their majorities in the House and Senate.

Open-government advocates on Wednesday applauded Mrs. Pelosi's announcement.
Getty Images

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed House officials to post office-expense reports online.

"Now that the light has been shined on the problem some people are running for the corners while others are trying to explain how they're going to change things. It's good to see the speaker is on the side of disclosure," said Pete Sepp, spokesman of the Virginia-based National Taxpayers Union.

The Senate has lagged in several respects regarding public disclosure of tax-supported expenditures.

Senators, for example, don't have to provide any details of their spending on rent for their offices back home, nor of money spent on communications, utilities, supplies and materials. Those costs typically total millions of dollars each year. Many members spend $100,000 or more on office rent and related costs, according to reports.

"We are in the process of assessing that and seeing what's involved," because some expense documents are not yet filed electronically, said Jean Bordewich, staff director of the Senate Rules Committee, which oversees the Senate office that compiles the reports.

Congress passed a rule change in late 2000 that allowed senators to avoid publicly disclosing details of such spending. Instead, only a total for each of the categories is listed in the Senate's semiannual reports.

At the time, lawmakers said the large volume of information made the reports too unwieldy.

Jock Friedly of LegiStorm, a nonpartisan Web site documenting congressional information, praised the House speaker's action and said the Senate should take similar steps. "It's about time," he said.

—John D. McKinnon contributed to this article.

---------

Tout compte fait, C'EST une excellente idee (peut-etre un peu copiee chez nos amis britanniques d'ailleurs mais bon) entre 1.3 et 4.5 millions de dollars, ca fait une moyenne de 2.9 millions (arrondissons a 3 millions) PAR elu a la Chambre. Ils sont 435, ca fait tout de meme: 1,305 milliard de nos dollars preleves par le fisc!

Au senat ils sont 100. Alors OUI ca vaut la peine tant que d'autres affaires plus importantes ne passent pas en catimini!

... NP! Il les a vexes et maintenant, ils ne voudront plus etre dans notre camp.

Supreme Leader of Iran: Muslim Nations "hate America"
By Thomas Erdbrink and William Branigin

Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, June 4, 2009; 11:37 AM

TEHRAN, June 4 -- Iran's supreme leader dismissed President Obama's speech at Cairo University Thursday, saying the Muslim world continues to "hate America." And he criticized the United States and its allies for asserting that Iran seeks nuclear weapons, which he insisted are forbidden under Iran's brand of Islam.

Speaking shortly before Obama delivered his address, in which he called for a "new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that "beautiful speeches" could not remove the hatred felt in the Muslim world against America.

"People of the Middle East, the Muslim region and North Africa -- people of these regions -- hate America from the bottom of their heart," Khamenei said at a gathering to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the father of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution and Khamenei's predecessor as the predominantly Shiite Muslim country's supreme religious leader.

"For a long time, these people have witnessed aggressive actions by America, and that's why they hate them," Khamenei, 69, told a crowd of several thousand supporters in his televised speech.

Alluding to Obama's new approach in foreign affairs, he said that the previous administration of President George W. Bush had left an "ill-mannered image" of itself in the world.

Regarding Iran's nuclear program, the main issue of contention between his country and the United States, Khamenei reiterated Tehran's assertions that it seeks only to generate electricity, and he referred to a religious edict, or fatwa, that he issued at least four years ago in which he declared that the production, stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons was prohibited under Islam. The Iranian government cited the fatwa at an August 2005 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

"Our nation says we want to have a nuclear industry," Khamenei said Thursday. "We want to use nuclear energy in a peaceful way. However, the West and America say that the Iranian nation is seeking to make a nuclear bomb. Why are they telling lies?"

The senior Shiite cleric continued: "The Iranian government and nation have repeatedly said that we do not want nuclear weapons. We have announced that according to Islamic principles, the use of nuclear weapons is forbidden. It is dangerous to keep nuclear weapons. We are not seeking to have them. We do not want them."

Khamenei, who served as president of Iran for eight years in the 1980s, succeeded Khomeini as supreme leader in 1989, becoming the nation's highest-ranking political and religious authority. As such, he is more powerful than President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and appoints many key leaders, including the commanders of the armed forces and members of national security councils dealing with defense and foreign affairs.

Other Iranians reacted cautiously to Obama's speech. In it, the U.S. president acknowledged that the United States had "played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government" in 1953, but he pointed as well to an Iranian role in "acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians" since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward," Obama said. "The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build."
Obama also said that "we have reached a decisive point" on nuclear weapons and the need to prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But he said that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Mohammad Marandi, the head of the North American Studies Department at Tehran University, said of Obama's speech, "I didn't hear many new things from Obama. We need to see fundamental change in American policies. People in this region are expecting change as much as the people in the United States."

Marandi added in a telephone interview: "When Obama says that he recognizes Iran's rights to having peaceful nuclear energy, does that mean he will honor that right in negotiations with Iran? Or is this rhetoric? This is what we want to know."

Branigin reported from Washington.

-----

Remarquez le "supreme leader of Iran"... (le Vashington Post)

Obama Overture to Hamas Suggests Inevitability of Terror Group's Dominance Among Palestinians

The mention of terror group Hamas as a leader of Palestinians has some wondering just how far President Obama is going to change U.S. policy toward the Mideast.

In an apparent policy shift, President Obama on Thursday invited Hamas -- a designated terror organization -- to "play a role" in the future of the Palestinian people.

During his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo on Thursday, the U.S. president bluntly recognized the group, which has called for the destruction of Israel, in a two-sentence passage that was part of a broader discussion about the terms for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

"Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist," Obama said.

The president then called on Israel to end settlement construction and for both sides to embrace a two-state solution. He reiterated that the U.S. bond with Israel is "unbreakable."

Some observers said they were struck by the firm tone Obama took with both sides in addressing the generations-old conflict and particularly with his recognition of Hamas, which may signal to the group that it is seen as an inevitable part of the Palestinian future.

"That is a major shift in Middle East policy and it's not good," said Marc Thiessen, former speechwriter for former President George W. Bush, who sought to isolate Hamas.

"Israel has reached out to the Muslim world by giving Gaza back and they have even talked about a Palestinian state. But all of these entities, Hamas, Hezbollah and others, have said Israel's right to exist should not be guaranteed," said Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

The three "responsibilities" Obama mentioned -- an end to violence, recognition of past agreements and of Israel's right to exist -- have been part of U.S. policy toward Hamas for years. But those responsibilities are often stated as conditions for engagement with Hamas -- not for implied Western support of Hamas governance.

Bruce Riedel, a foreign policy fellow with the Brookings Institution and former Middle East adviser to several U.S. presidents, said Obama -- ever the pragmatist -- was merely trying to steer an undeniable force in Palestinian life and politics into the mainstream.

"I think he's challenging them. ... He's saying if you want to lead your people forward, here's what you need to do," he said. "The reality is Hamas now controls Gaza, more than 1 million people. It can't be ignored."
Currently, the Fatah government of Mahmoud Abbas is in charge of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, which Israel vacated in 2005.

Fatah and Hamas broke ties from a coalition government two years ago when Hamas won a majority of votes in parliamentary elections, but could not control key ministries and maintain Western support because of its widespread designation as a terror group.

One Hamas official Mahmoud Ramahi offered qualified praise for the speech.

"I have followed the speech closely. There are many positive points," Ramahi is quoted saying in the Jerusalem Post. "There is a difference between his policy and Bush's policy. I see a change in the U.S. foreign policy discourse."
As for Obama's statements on Israeli settlements and the two-state solution, Riedel said they were tough, but necessary.

"It was about as direct and forceful as you could have gotten... he didn't pull any punches with either side," he said, noting that Obama's also forcefully condemned Holocaust deniers, a message likely aimed at Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and those who call for the destruction of Israel. But he said the speech is sure to cause a backlash in Israel.

"The Israelis are not going to like some of what they heard, especially about settlements," he said.

In the days leading up to his address, the president's prior call for Israel to abandon all settlement construction drew criticism in the Jewish state, and had been rebuffed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu's issued a statement after the speech praising the U.S. president in broad terms.

"The government of Israel expresses hope that President Obama's important speech will lead to a new period of reconciliation between the Arab and Muslim world, and Israel," the statement said.

"Israel is obligated to peace and will do as much as possible to help expand the circle of peace, while taking into consideration our national interests, the foremost of which is security," it concluded.

But Israeli media reported Thursday that settler leaders were frustrated by Obama's address.

...

Date:.............................Pres. Approval..Strongly.........Strongly.......Total...............Total
..........................................Index..........Approve.......Disapprove...Approve.........Disapprove

06/05/2009......................... 0..................34%.............. 34%............ 54%............... 46%

========

01/21/2009....................... 28.................44%...............16%..............65%................30%

donc un gauchiste a la maison blanche et maintenant ils votent a droite! ben ca alors!

Across Europe, Left-Leaning Parties See Clout Faltering

J'espere que la prochaine fois, les 98% s'occuperont de ce qui les regardent et feront ce que les Americains ont fait pour les elections europeennes, c'est-a-dire: RIEN!

Re “Addressing Muslims, a Blunt Obama Takes On Mideast Issues” (front page, June 5):
The world’s eyes and ears on Cairo underscores how President Obama has given us the gift of a new and unique opportunity — one that only a year ago seemed like a fantasy — to reorient America as a peaceful citizen of the planet we seem to have rejoined at last.

President Obama has “pressed the reset button,” as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov of Russia, and our return from the wilderness could help bring the Israelis and the Palestinians closer to peace and reconciliation — and underneath all restore those Western-Islamic relations that have so heavily burdened the second half of the last century and especially the beginning of the new one.

No wonder Al Qaeda fears and hates President Obama. And no wonder, even after the new millennium started with an unexpected nightmare, it seems we can at least dream, after all, that our and the Middle East’s and world’s children might grow up to better lives.

We can never of course get back to the world of Sept. 10, 2001, but with lots of determination — and luck — our president may eventually return us closer to that place than we had ever dared to hope.

James Adler
Cambridge, Mass., June 5, 2009

Ca veut dire quoi exactement? Incroyable!

Musulman, lui des lors la comprehension, la patience, l'acceptation ne sont pas necessaires.

Obama Dismisses Alleged Snug of the Sarkozys


By Daniela Sicuranza

FOXNews.com

Saturday, June 06, 2009


President Obama sought to clear the air with the French Saturday about a rumored snub to France's President Nicolas Sarkozy.

In the days leading up to Obama's stop in Normandy for the D-Day ceremony, rumors swirled that the Obamas had declined a dinner invitation from the French first couple -- leading some to suggest that it was a reflection of frosty U.S.-French relations.

The British press reported the supposed declined invite was payback to Sarkozy for failing to invite Queen Elizabeth to the D-Day ceremony and a sign of continuing tension between the United States and France.

"President Obama's reluctance to spend more than minimum time with the French leader on his visit for the D-Day anniversary has come as an embarrassment to the Elysee Palace," the Times of London reported.

But Obama insisted that his lack of personal time spent with Sarkozy was not a snub.
...

Michelle's staff shake-up explained
By NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON & MIKE ALLEN | 6/5/09 7:37 PM EDT


The staff shakeup in the East Wing – with Jackie Norris out as chief of staff to Michelle Obama – came because Norris wasn’t enjoying the bureaucratic part of the job and wanted a change, a senior administration official said.

Norris has been appointed senior adviser to the Corporation for National and Community Service. She’ll be replaced by Susan Sher, a longtime friend and mentor to Michelle Obama.

Norris, who bonded with Obama in Iowa as an organizational force in Barack Obama’s caucus victory, didn’t like the management and scheduling duties, and the intense social component of the job, the source said.

And the East Wing operation turned out to be bigger and more complex than anyone realized when they set up the office, the official said. Michelle Obama has become something of a media phenomenon, whose every move, and outfit, is chronicled – and who has done a variety of events that raised her public profile, such as planting a White House vegetable garden and speaking regularly at local schools and events.



Norris’ move, which was in the works for a few weeks, was a mutual one.

“The first lady and Jackie remain very close. Jackie got the job because Michelle loves her and wanted somebody that she could trust, and liked a great deal, in the job,” the source said. “It’s no coincidence that she’s going to a government agency that Michelle Obama really cares a great deal about, and that is in an area where Michelle is extraordinarily active — national service and those issues," the senior official said. "Jackie is going to be much happier.”

The shake-up was notable for how quickly it occurred, barely five months into President Obama’s first term. Already the West Wing also has lost one senior official, communications director Ellen Moran, who resigned last month.

...

plus que cordial en comparaison...

Iran's Powerful Former President Attacks Ahmadinejad, Vows to Sue Hard-Line Leader

Saturday, June 06, 2009


AP
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told an Iranian news agency on Thursday, May 27, that the country had boosted its capacity to enrich uranium.

TEHRAN, Iran — A powerful former president said Saturday he will sue hard-line leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for slander over remarks he made during an election debate.

In the latest obstacle to his campaign for re-election, Ahmadinejad has found himself in a bitter confrontation with Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and another former president, reformist Mohammad Khatami, neither of whom are candidates in Friday's vote.

In a highly charged televised debate on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad accused Rafsanjani, his sons and several other former top officials of corruption. It was an unusual move, given that Iranian politicians often avoid mentioning names in their attacks on opponents.

An outraged Rafsanjani rejected the accusations as "a complete set of lies" and demanded equal airtime to respond. On Saturday he went a step further, announcing that he and his sons will sue the president for slander.

Rafsanjani is a powerful figure in Iran's clerical leadership and is considered an influential political insider. He lost to Ahmadinejad in 2005 and has not publicly backed any candidate this time around, but he is believed to support anyone against Ahmadinejad.

...

Je trouve qu'on fait de mauvais procès d'intention à Mouloud Amènecommeunnaja ; c'est un politicien qui, contrairement à d'autres, quand il veut faire donner les verges à des opposants ne pratique pas la langue de bois ! Il faut mettre à son crédit qu'il n'est pas corrompu, chez lui il n'y a pas d'enrichissement personnel ; ce n'est pas sa poche qu'il cherche à enrichir mais c'est l'uranium. Ça explique que le peuple iranien fasse fusion avec son président qui bombe le torse de façon si atomique.

Comme j'en faisais la remarque dernierement, les Gays perdent patience ils ont donc decide d'agir.

Gay rights activist calls for march on Washington
SLIDESHOW



Gay Rights activist and founder of the NAMES project, Cleve Jones, announces a national march on Washington D.C. for October of 2009 during a rally at the Utah Pride Festival Sunday, June 7, 2009 in Salt Lake City. The rally announced for next fall is to push congress to enact legislation for gay rights equality. (AP Photo/Steve C. Wilson) (Steve C Wilson - AP)

By JENNIFER DOBNER
The Associated Press
Sunday, June 7, 2009; 6:21 PM

SALT LAKE CITY -- An activist who worked alongside slain gay rights leader Harvey Milk announced plans Sunday for a march on Washington this fall to demand that Congress establish equality and marriage rights for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.
Cleve Jones said the march planned for Oct. 11 will coincide with National Co
ming Out Day and launch a new chapter in the gay rights movement. He made the announcement during a rally at the annual Utah Pride Festival.

"We seek nothing more and nothing less than equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states," Jones said.

He stirred up a crowd of thousands just blocks from the Salt Lake City headquarters of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, part of a conservative coalition that worked last fall to pass California's Proposition 8, which overturned a court ruling legalizing gay marriage.

"I've got a message for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," Jones shouted. "I've got two words from California ... I've got two words for the prophet ... Thank you. Thank you for uniting us. Thank you for galvanizing us."

Mormons were among the campaign's most vigorous volunteers and financial contributors, giving tens of millions of dollars to back Proposition 8, which Jones said has helped awaken and unite the gay rights movement in all 50 states.

Like many faiths, Mormons hold traditional marriage as a sacred institution. The church has been active in fighting marriage equality legislation across the U.S. since the 1990s and, in 2006, joined other faiths in asking Congress for a marriage amendment to the Constitution.

...

From left, Johnny Harris of Salt Lake City gets a thank you kiss from "Beneatha Serta" of the "Utah Cyber Sluts" after helping her get up after falling off a bicycle at the Utah Pride Parade in downtown Salt Lake City on Sunday, June 7, 2009. (AP Photo/Deseret News, Mike Terry) (Mike Terry - AP)

L'imagination au pouvoir c'est ringard, le carnaval au pouvoir !

Chic, chic et... d'un chic!!!

clic ici pour la suite

Jam

Votre serail?

jam a écrit:

clic ici pour la suite

L'alcoolisme ne m'apparaît plus comme une maladie... l'alcoolisme est le remède

AP
The Kansas clinic where abortion doctor George Tiller worked before he was shot to death at church will be permanently shuttered, his attorney says.

FOX News